Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty

[tx 3 putt 77535]

2 hours ago, FirstTimeCaller said:

Yeah, oil prices went negative during the last guy's administration.

curious if we filled up the strategic reserve during those low prices 

[tx 3 putt 77535]

Bwahahahahahaa

 

[TwiceHorn 31554]

5 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

Bwahahahahahaa

 

As stated previously, Engoron is a national treasure.  He seems to be exactly what a judge should be, firm but courteous and decisive without being rash.

And if it is personal pique or bias that motivates him, he does a great job of a) restraining himself and b) legally and factually justifying his actions.

In federal courts, one or both clerks attend hearings and trials (and appeals) sitting at a desk/bench away from the judge.  It's not common for a judge to call a clerk over to the bench, but if it happened, it would take massive brass balls for an attorney to question that in open court, real fucking clangers.

[Foosters 17889]

3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Witnesses and defendants are caught in lies or dissembling on the crucial issues in lawsuits every day.  Nothing usually comes of it because everyone involved has bigger or more immediate fish to fry.

Theoretically, it could support a perjury prosecution, but basically "aint nobody got time for that" and DA's offices would grind to a halt.

In a really egregious case, a criminal referral may be made, sometime by the judge.  I have heard of them calling in a DA to a hearing or trial right in the middle of it to "see" what just happened.

@RomaVicta In addition to the above, its also just really hard to prove (absent a witness memorializing that he/she intends to lie in advance.) A universal truth about witnesses is their memory is usually shit. Its very difficult to prove that someone is intentionally lying as opposed to misremembering or forgetting. Remember, it all comes down to the burden of proof - beyond a reasonable doubt. Absent direct evidence of perjury, how do you convince 12/12 jurors that the misstatement of fact was intentional?

 

[Rimbo 26140]

2 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

Really leaning into the "won't someone think of the children" and 'families" part of this.  

 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

"think of the children" has an entirely different meaning for someone like Trump who was good friends with Epstein.

[Rimbo 26140]

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

The evidence of their guilt of stealing documents and improper handling of classified documents has nothing to do with the contents of the documents. It's not a surprise that the docs were mishandled - it's the raison d'etre for this entire fucking case lol. 

This line of argument only ends with putting the entire system of classification on trial and getting dragged into another round of delaydelaydelay as we continue to act like fucking Pollyannas with a pack of fascists. I feel like y'all are just looking for SOMETHING, ANYTHING to validate trumpcos defense and justify your delusion of our laws and justice system actually doing fucking anything to punish trump for his multitude of crimes. 

Between him and Santos and Paxton, it's become abundantly clear that if you can move fast enough with the right political cover, you're  untouchable and above consequences. Or at the very least, you can throw enough sand in the gears to make all the lawyers hem and haw and fret about how messy and fraught it all is and how we should just go nice and slow to be sure we don't make a mistake. Which is a wonderful service to the fascists that have made a career out of delaying legal action against them. 

Listen here you little shit.

If we do what they do to stop them from doing it, we become them.

We built this system to be better than that; not just as a response to authoritarianism, but a weapon against it.

If it fails, they'll tear it down for us. Then we beat THEM up, take their fucking lunch money, and try to build it again.

But we don't "destroy the village to save it."

Fuck off with that defeatist bullshit. That defeatism is Trump's most powerful weapon against you. Fuck that guy, and fuck you too, ok?

[Rimbo 26140]

53 minutes ago, Horn Dog said:

So Aileen is pissed, not at Trumps attempt at fuckery, but rather that the Special Councel used more than 200 words to alert her of Trumps fuckery???  Am I reading that correct?

 

50 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

You are indeed. 

 

49 minutes ago, Underdog said:

200 words is her reading limit. 

"I can't words good." -Aileen Cannon

[Rimbo 26140]

23 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

Bwahahahahahaa

 

she is suddenly so much more attractive

[tx 3 putt 77535]

2 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

 

 

"I can't words good." -Aileen Cannon

 

 

[tx 3 putt 77535]

15 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

As stated previously, Engoron is a national treasure.  He seems to be exactly what a judge should be, firm but courteous and decisive without being rash.

And if it is personal pique or bias that motivates him, he does a great job of a) restraining himself and b) legally and factually justifying his actions.

In federal courts, one or both clerks attend hearings and trials (and appeals) sitting at a desk/bench away from the judge.  It's not common for a judge to call a clerk over to the bench, but if it happened, it would take massive brass balls for an attorney to question that in open court, real fucking clangers.

 

 

 

 

[The Dog 44160]

guess this goes here. Meadows now finding out.

[Red Five 40898]

Where did the hard-on for this law clerk come from?

[Chewbacca 7787]

2 minutes ago, The Dog said:

guess this goes here. Meadows now finding out.

Aw, that's a shame.

[tx 3 putt 77535]

F

A

F

O

 

 

[Captainant 27826]

15 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

Listen here you little shit.

If we do what they do to stop them from doing it, we become them.

We built this system to be better than that; not just as a response to authoritarianism, but a weapon against it.

If it fails, they'll tear it down for us. Then we beat THEM up, take their fucking lunch money, and try to build it again.

But we don't "destroy the village to save it."

Fuck off with that defeatist bullshit. That defeatism is Trump's most powerful weapon against you. Fuck that guy, and fuck you too, ok?

You are over your handlebars my dude. I'm not saying we skip a trial and due process, but the contents of the classified material is not at issue here. Playing along with this bad faith delaying tactic is just being a useful idiot. 

[dcbc 14525]

11 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

F

A

F

O

 

 

 

[The Dog 44160]

13 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Where did the hard-on for this law clerk come from?

it's some conspiracy theory Trump came up with that he wants them to push. it's all a performance for an audience of one as they say.

[tx 3 putt 77535]

7 minutes ago, The Dog said:

it's some conspiracy theory Trump came up with that he wants them to push. it's all a performance for an audience of one as they say.

all setting up their appeal, imo 

[Rimbo 26140]

10 minutes ago, The Dog said:

it's some conspiracy theory Trump came up with that he wants them to push. it's all a performance for an audience of one as they say.

 

2 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

all setting up their appeal, imo 

it's what you do when you know you're about to get an ass whuppin

[SydneyCarton 48203]

Just now, Rimbo said:

 

it's what you do when you know you're about to get an ass whuppin

He doesn’t have to win. He just has to delay. 

[The Dog 44160]

4 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

all setting up their appeal, imo 

and the Judge is daring them to do so (they also admitted to it today):

After Trump lawyer Cliff Robert sought guidance as to what objections they can make about his law clerk's conduct, Judge Arthur Engoron promised to issue a written order. The resulting three-page order reveals the answer: none. 1/

iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDoc…

In the order, Engoron reviews the history with respect to Trump and his campaign’s online discussions about the law clerk, but notes his prior assumption that “such a gag order would be unnecessary upon the attorneys, who are officers of the Court.” 2/ 

But instead, he’s heard “on the record, repeated, inappropriate remarks” about the clerk “falsely accusing her of bias against them and of improperly influencing the ongoing bench trial” through her exchange of notes with the judge. “These arguments have no basis,” he writes. 3/ 

Noting that his communications with his staff are both confidential and a product of his “unfettered right” to consult with them, he tells Team Trump, in essence, he’s not going to change his conduct—and they’re not allowed to “continue referencing my staff.” 4/ 

They have their record, Engoron notes, and he’ll consider it “fully preserved” for the duration of the proceedings.” And now, he seems to encourage them, if you don’t like it, go file an appeal. 5/ 

But unless and until they prevail on such an appeal, his directive is clear: Do not “make any further statements about internal and confidential communications (be it conversations, note passing or anything similar) between me and my staff.” 6/ 

That directive applies both in and out of court, he clarifies, and “[f]ailure to abide by this directive shall result in serious sanctions.” FIN. 

[tx 3 putt 77535]

 

[BamaATL 16593]

1 hour ago, tx 3 putt said:

Bwahahahahahaa

 

You sort of have to believe this isn't the only Friday evening she's ever spent with duct tape over her mouth, right?  (Consensual, of course)

[dcbc 14525]

Just now, BamaATL said:

You sort of have to believe this isn't the only Friday evening she's ever spent with duct tape over her mouth, right?  (Consensual, of course)

You might say this is one meaty gag order.

[Francisco 2.0 32431]

 

 

 

[Rimbo 26140]

34 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

He doesn’t have to win. He just has to delay. 

How's that working out for him?

[Rimbo 26140]

1 minute ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

 

 

which is the one Don said he'd have sex with?

[dcbc 14525]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Right, I am just aiming to educate people a little bit about where all this "the law is an ass" stuff comes from.

And, on CIPA, I'm struggling to understand the issues and operation of it myself, but when I think I reach an understanding of it, I'll come and explain what I think I'm getting.

But, as mentioned previously, in a criminal case, the defendant generally gets everything the government intends to use against them.

Classified information cannot be given to defendants, so complying with the above is impossible without waiving all confidentiality/classification.  If the defendant can't be given anything, the case has to be dismissed.

CIPA tries to strike a balance, about which the parties are going to argue extensively.  The Reality Winner case, which as far as I know involved a single item of NDI, had some very extensive wrangling over CIPA, like months' worth and dozens of docket entries on that alone.

 

I have no working knowledge of CIPA, but I get the gist of its purpose.  And yes, defendant's usually get the government's "whole file" so to speak

 

That said, I understand the argument that the contents of the documents are unimportant.  Anything classified as "top secret" or "secret" means, by definition, that dissemination of such information would be harmful to national security (or to use the language of the 1940s statute, "national defense."  I also think the idea that something was "wrongfully classified" sounds like an end run on the process of classifying a document.  No collateral attacks.  Should have made that argument before you walked away with all those classified documents.  I would think that, to some extent, the government wants to the jury to see or understand the nature of the contents of the documents generally because it underlines the seriousness of the crime, i.e., if he absconding with nuclear secrets versus something more mundane, yet still classified.   

[dcbc 14525]

6 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

 

 

 

If I were a gambling man, I would have bet that Eric would have been a large puzzle piece in the downfall of this criminal enterprise.

[jimmyjazz 46225]

2 minutes ago, dcbc said:

I also think the idea that something was "wrongfully classified" sounds like an end run on the process of classifying a document.  No collateral attacks.  Should have made that argument before you walked away with all those classified documents. 

Trump could have declassified every document before leaving office.  I don't think that would have given him carte blanche to RETAIN all those documents -- most of them surely weren't "personal" -- but it also seems that the extent of the crime would have been reduced.

[TwiceHorn 31554]

7 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Trump could have declassified every document before leaving office.  I don't think that would have given him carte blanche to RETAIN all those documents -- most of them surely weren't "personal" -- but it also seems that the extent of the crime would have been reduced.

Again, it would not have.

The crime is unlawful possession/retention of NDI.  There is a high overlap between classified information and NDI, but they are not perfectly interchangeable.  Especially for NDI that is not or no longer classified.

[dcbc 14525]

11 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Trump could have declassified every document before leaving office.  I don't think that would have given him carte blanche to RETAIN all those documents -- most of them surely weren't "personal" -- but it also seems that the extent of the crime would have been reduced.

Retaining the documents, even after being notified, goes a long way to prove intent.  That's why when Biden or Pence are found to have documents and give them back immediately, they don't end up being indicted over it.

Edited November 3, 2023 by dcbc

[jimmyjazz 46225]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Again, it would not have.

The crime is unlawful possession/retention of NDI.  There is a high overlap between classified information and NDI, but they are not perfectly interchangeable.  Especially for NDI that is not or no longer classified.

It certainly would not have made the crime WORSE.  It's unknown by you or me if the extent of the crime would have been reduced -- I'd take the bet.

[texastough 1129]

As a recovering lawyer who doesn't know anything about CIPA, let me offer something. I don't think we are talking about just giving copies of top secret documents to the defense. Probably they can satisfy CIPA with a combination of the titles/description of some docs, redactions, review by trump attorneys supervised in a scif of documents they have obtained clearance for, etc. Enough info to answer whether the doc was for national defense, but not the super secret stuff

Not just giving them back all the complete docs

[TwiceHorn 31554]

3 minutes ago, texastough said:

As a recovering lawyer who doesn't know anything about CIPA, let me offer something. I don't think we are talking about just giving copies of top secret documents to the defense. Probably they can satisfy CIPA with a combination of the titles/description of some docs, redactions, review by trump attorneys supervised in a scif of documents they have obtained clearance for, etc. Enough info to answer whether the doc was for national defense, but not the super secret stuff

Not just giving them back all the complete docs

Correct, it seems.  

And the argument to the court is a little like negotiating:  at some point you ask for the moon, knowing you'll never get it, so it makes your fallback positions look more reasonable.

And, as seen above in NY, some of the court arguments have been playing to the audience of one much more than trying  to win anything.

Because there wasn't much record of Trump at trial, civil or criminal, I'm not sure how much mostly "straight" guys like Kise could really anticipate having to beclown themselves in open court, although it was in many ways predictable.  I'm wondering how much Kise is regretting this.  I also bet he's come damn close to blowing through that $3M RETAINERRRR.

[atomheartbevo 89824]

50 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

You sort of have to believe this isn't the only Friday evening she's ever spent with duct tape over her mouth, right?  (Consensual, of course)

She's a silk scarf kind of lady.

So was Eric doing a production of Little Lord Fauntleroy that day?

[dcbc 14525]

38 minutes ago, texastough said:

As a recovering lawyer who doesn't know anything about CIPA, let me offer something. I don't think we are talking about just giving copies of top secret documents to the defense. Probably they can satisfy CIPA with a combination of the titles/description of some docs, redactions, review by trump attorneys supervised in a scif of documents they have obtained clearance for, etc. Enough info to answer whether the doc was for national defense, but not the super secret stuff

Not just giving them back all the complete docs

Sounds like a "privilege log."

30 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

at some point you ask for the moon, knowing you'll never get it

You only have once chance to be unreasonable. 

[The Dog 44160]

Vanity:

 

[tx 3 putt 77535]

Damn, they did cyber bro right 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13588]

Look. 

If Marissa Tomei can ninja ambush a bunch of hayseeds in court with her automotive knowledge then Jack Smith can damn well drop a "DEEZ NUTS!" with a backhand full of classifieds upside Trump's head for a follow up to "Oh yeah? Well then what are these?"

[Serak The Preparer 3434]

Jfc, do people really think the "sexy" SBF sketch is an actual court sketch? I guess I believe that DT Jr believes that but I am hoping that people in general aren't as gullible.

For the record, this was one of the actual SBF sketches:

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13588]

1 minute ago, Serak The Preparer said:

Jfc, do people really think the "sexy" SBF sketch is an actual court sketch? I guess I believe that DT Jr believes that but I am hoping that people in general aren't as gullible.

For the record, this was one of the actual SBF sketches:

Needs a "furk!" word bubble.

[CTC2 2802]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Correct, it seems.  

And the argument to the court is a little like negotiating:  at some point you ask for the moon, knowing you'll never get it, so it makes your fallback positions look more reasonable.

And, as seen above in NY, some of the court arguments have been playing to the audience of one much more than trying  to win anything.

Because there wasn't much record of Trump at trial, civil or criminal, I'm not sure how much mostly "straight" guys like Kise could really anticipate having to beclown themselves in open court, although it was in many ways predictable.  I'm wondering how much Kise is regretting this.  I also bet he's come damn close to blowing through that $3M RETAINERRRR.

Nothing like the feeling of when you feel secure enough as a lawyer to fire a client.  That discovery allowed me to practice law for @ 10 more years than I really wanted to. 

[Born to Run 6569]

Nothing like the feeling of when you feel secure enough as a lawyer to fire a client.  That discovery allowed me to practice law for @ 10 more years than I really wanted to. 

Same, except I'm a Builder. Liberating indeed.

[Underdog 28785]

54 minutes ago, Serak The Preparer said:

Jfc, do people really think the "sexy" SBF sketch is an actual court sketch? I guess I believe that DT Jr believes that but I am hoping that people in general aren't as gullible.

For the record, this was one of the actual SBF sketches:

Is that a finger or his bottom lip? 

[27-25 2055]

2 minutes ago, Underdog said:

Is that a finger or his bottom lip? 

[aggie08 21555]

1 hour ago, Serak The Preparer said:

Jfc, do people really think the "sexy" SBF sketch is an actual court sketch? I guess I believe that DT Jr believes that but I am hoping that people in general aren't as gullible.

[tx 3 putt 77535]

 

hang them all 

[Gatorubet 30321]

11 hours ago, The Dog said:

On 10/24/2023 at 6:32 PM, Gatorubet said:

I don’t know.   But I do expect the publisher to sue his ass for the money they gave him to write a book that turned out to be a whole lot of lies.  

Rimbo, I’m right once every 1,000 posts. 😂

[Nice Guy Eddie 13528]

I’ve only briefly followed the NY civil trial because I assumed that Trump would owe some back taxes and a penalty. Something that would hurt but nothing crazy.

Then today I read that NY may be able to take ALL profits earned from fraudulent activities, even from other properties not specifically involved in this case.  I believe a connection has to be made such as the proven fraudulent activity allowed them to buy another property that they later sold for X profit. Something about a unique NY law from the 1950s that Trumps lawyers were perhaps unaware.